Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

stry_cat writes "You may remember the story of Brandon Raub, who was detained without due process over some Facebook posts he made. Now with the help of the Rutherford Institute, he is suing his captors. According to his complaint [PDF], his detention was part of a federal government program code-named 'Operation Vigilant Eagle,' which monitors military veterans with certain political views."

The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.

Governments are doing this with ease, because apathy allows it to happen. We are destroying ourselves, and as long as joe six-pack can get his beer and pills, he's happy and content with drones flying over his head, and will be too drunk or high to notice his Rights are gone one day. Not weakened. GONE.

Of course, the average mouth-breather won't notice this until they're staring into the mugshot camera, soon to join the masses of the Incarcerated States of America.

Control. That is the end game. By whatever means necessary. That should be painfully obvious in this day and age when the word patriot is synonymous with terrorist.

If we're going to reverse citizens united, then while we're at it we should also ban unions from making political contributions. Even if any one of their members disagrees with a political message, they have to fund it with their union dues anyways, or else their union has the power to get them fired. It's both stupid and unfair to hold somebody's job over their head if they decide to have an independent voice.

Ban hollywood photo-ops too. Those are extremely valuable from a marketing perspective, and if you

Exactly. Voting doesn't do squat when you're limited to two pre-approved choices that are both bad. And bullets (or explosives) don't help either; just ask Jared Loughner or Timothy McVeigh; their actions sure didn't help matters any.

The pen (or the keyboard) truly is mightier than the sword. Of course, while mighty, the keyboard isn't very effective when the country's populace is completely dumbed-down and apathetic.

Personally, my hope is that the political and economic pressures in the US will cause it to break apart into a handful of separate republics, and that by being freed of having to compromise with the other states with completely different views and values, some of those republics will prosper, much like some of the eastern European countries prospered after being freed of Soviet rule (such as Czech Republic and Poland).

IMHO, the biggest problem with democracy here in the US is the mistaken belief you have two choices.

While the solution would take 2-3 election cycles, two duopoly can be easily changed by encouraging people to vote for the party that actually represents their views. Sure they won't win, but consider what happened when Nader got a ton of votes back during the Bush / Gore election - either the big parties will change their approach (as happened then) or the US will evolve to a multy party system.

The challenge is convincing a society bent in instant gratification that this doesn't 'waste' your vote - rather it is a strategic long term investment.

While the solution would take 2-3 election cycles, two duopoly can be easily changed by encouraging people to vote for the party that actually represents their views.

The problem with that is there are a LOT of single-issue voters out there - people that will consider one issue to be WAY more important than all the others combined. For example, I know people that agreed with almost the entire platform for a candidate, but simply wouldn't vote for him/her because they differ from the candidate on (pick one) abortion/gun/gay rights. Some people are unable or unwilling to compromise. For the good of the country as a whole, I find this a little short-sighted and narrow-mind

You can when the margin in Florida was only a little over five hundred votes. In point of fact, had any single third-party candidate chosen not to run, and had all of that candidate's votes gone to Gore, it would have tipped the election solidly to Gore.

Whoosh. Try comprehending what I originally said. You are now blaming 500 people who didn't vote the way you wanted, and not the millions of democrats who didn't vote the way you wanted. When things don't go your way, the largest causal group is who is responsible, not the smallest. The most responsible people (besides those republicans that were obviously going to vote for bush anyway) was the Democrats who voted for Bush, not the 3rd party people. Again, quit with the learned helplessness; you are complet

Sorry, 200,000, not millions. So you can blame one group of 500 people for voting 3rd party, or you can blame FOUR HUNDRED groups of 500 Democrats who voted for bush. Yeah, it isn't a 3rd party issue, not mathematically.

Because people who refuse to vote Republicrat magically will if their preferred 3rd party candidate drops out.

You truly don't understand the situation. Those of us that vote 3rd party aren't doing so because suddenly there is ONE 3rd party candidate we like, we are doing so because we know there is no viable future of an America led by either Republicans or Democrats, and that to vote for either of those parties is the only true way to waste a vote - It is a vote to make the country worse (which Obama did

That would be nice, but we wouldn't hear the end of it from the southern states.

What are you talking about? They've been itching to break away for over 150 years. They'd be happy to be allowed to go out on their own finally. Yes, they do absorb the most Federal money, but that's irrelevant: go ask all the Southern pride folks if they want to secede or not, and they'll tell you "yes". They think they'll do just fine without a Federal government (or at least, with only a Federal government that encompasses the Southern states and is independent from the north and west).

and would quickly erupt into anarchy once the shit hit the fan. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they killed themselves in the span of a month.

That may be, but again, the Southerners don't see it that way. And if they do self-destruct, how's that our problem? The conservatives (who are strong in the South) are constantly talking about "letting the free market work"; well, let's give them their freedom and leave them to their own devices. They're all adults; it's their own responsibility to take care of themselves. If they can do better on their own, great. If not, oh well. Either way, the rest of us would be better off without their representatives being part of our government.

And it's not just that I think the South should be kicked out, it's the whole union: the northwest, the midwest, the southwest, the southeast should all be separate countries. They'd probably all (or at least most of them) do better without having to be part of a single union where none of them can agree on anything, and the federal government of which has entirely too much power and no longer represents the will of the people (for example: marijuana laws), and thrives on the endless infighting between the different regional interests.

I definitely agree that we'd be better off with a number of smaller countries. I'd love to see the US split into 5 or more independent republics.

At least then the national government of each would be much more representative of the population.

That was sort of the point of state governments in the first place.... until people like Abraham Lincoln screwed it up and turned America from a confederation into a strong centralized government. That is sort of the grinding axe on the part of the south-eastern states in America, where they were supposed to be independent republics with only a loose confederation that addressed very narrow and specific "national" needs on the "federal" level.

It has been misuse of things like the "interstate commerce clause" and even more blatant stamping out of individual state identities which has caused the bloat that we know today as the U.S. federal government. It is so bad that most people I've ever met seem to even forget there are state governments at all.

The big change happened when people stopped talking about "the United States are" and began saying "the United States is". That happened about 1860.

Anybody who talks about what constitutional authority Abraham Lincoln had to force at gunpoint the states of the south-east USA to remain part of the union can pervert that same logic to do pretty much anything they want including building concentration camps for specific ethnic minorities, religious groups, and conduct wholesale genocide of any group that those in power deem as unfit for whatever reason. BTW, all of that has been done in America by the U.S. federal government in the past, and is only inferior to Mao and Stalin (much less Hitler) simply because the scale of the genocide wasn't usually as massive. Supposedly that is something that happened in our distant past, but do you want to stick your neck out and find out if it is still being done?

Not the AC but... every time a politician starts talking about restricting guns or access to guns and ammo, I buy more. I contribute to organizations that fight politicians trying to do that. What does that get me? Around here, generally scorn because that isn't a freedom most around here seem to support. We should only support the other freedoms. You know, the freedom not to have to make choices because the government should give us everything we want.

Well, when you expect the government to be responsible for clothing you, feeding you, housing you, doctoring you, etc. why shouldn't you then expect the government to also take care of thinking for you as well?

That's included, only time I've ever had a weapon(s) intentionally pointed at me has been when the police did it.What I have had is bullets fly by close enough to hear though the weapon itself was far enough away to not hear the bang. I've also seen lots of targets setup in the bush with nothing behind them to stop the bullet along with empty shells showing stupid people were discharging firearms without knowing where the bullets were going to go..I see I've been down modded as flamebait for stating the obv

This is hardly the case of someone doing nothing wrong. From the original article:

On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"

When will those idiots running things realise disagreeing with your views doesn't make you an enemy?

The governments are doing more to destroy peace & safety of it's people than the terrorists ever did.

"Disagree" can cover quite a range; you make it sound like the "disagreement" is minor.
This situation sounds more complicated than "a minor disagreement."
If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.
So on the one hand it looks like it was worth investigating. On the other hand, it sounds like the authorities involved here will have some motivation to be better about following due process once the lawyers are done.
All in all it sounds like the checks & balances are working as planned in this situation.

On Facebook, Raub talked about the Illuminati, a shadow organization in which "some of the leaders were involved with the bombing of the twin towers" and the "great amount of evil perpetrated by the American Government."
He said people may think he was going crazy, but a "civil war," the "Revolution" is coming.
"I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting."
On July 24, he said he was at a "great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle."
On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them.
On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."
On August 14, Raub wrote, "The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it."
On August 15, Raub wrote, "And they will say he said it to the NSA first."

There was no due process because it was a psych eval not a criminal hearing.

An involuntary psychiatric evaluation, like any other form of arrest (the deprivation of a person of their liberty)still has to follow a legal process -- i.e., due process of law. As I stated, it seems that this was followed. If they have evidence that it wasn't, by all means they should pursue a lawsuit, but having read the FB posts in question I put their odds at slim to none.

Yeah, this isn't a rights issue, it's a mental health issue.. and frankly I can only hope that people who don't see that simply haven't looked into the details at all, because the other option is that they think Illuminati conspiracy shit is plausible.

No, people who are mentally unstable, if they are believed to be a threat to themselves or others (whether that's an outright-threat, or simply a threat to themselves because they are unable to make safe decisions (for example, a mentally ill person deciding to sleep inside of a retail store, or walking down a limited-access highway at night for fun (where pedestrians are not allowed))) they can be taken to a mental health facility for an evaluation, if they're sane but stupid.. that's one thing. if they are mentally ill, they can be provided treatment.

Really. It's a good thing. If you've ever known anyone who is seriously mentally ill, who has been involuntarily committed, you'd understand that though yes they will protest the treatment, it IS the right thing to do. There's nothing quite so heart-wrenching as talking to someone you care about and seeing That Look in their eyes. They do need help.

Due process for issues with mental illness typically involves the following (in the USA):

* A person can be confined for evaluation to a mental hospital for three business days based on evaluation by two people who have mental illness detainment rights--this typically is a police officer followed up by a psychologist (which is often required). This is not a commitment. It is an evaluation.* A person can be committed to a mental hospital by a judge in a court which will meet inside the psychiatric hospital. T

How about ranting about the Illuminati, and stating you're about to begin the revolution, and stating that you're sharpening your axe and coming for heads?

And yes, believing in the Illuminati is a far cry from believing Fox News is news. A very far cry. I'll give you a hint: Fox News actually exists.

Ever been around the mentally ill? Not just "oh i take antidepressants", but "I have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" mentally ill people. Somehow I don't think you have, if you're conflating mental illness with just plain being dumb.

Keep your partisan politics out of this bullshit, this is not a political issue.

Has Ted Nugent been detained for his comments about being "either dead or arrested" if Obama was reelected? Because that's a much more credible threat than this. Has Palin been detained for spouting demented conspiracy theories and talking shit about "don't retreat, reload" ?

No, because those are jingoistic nutjobs. Pro-government nutjobs. This is *absolutely* a political issue, as proven by the selective enforcement.

This guy over a period of time becomes more and more unhinged with his facebook postings, more erratic with his language and more fringe with his beliefs. You knew him, and what he is saying now is quite different than how you remember him. That's worrisome, watching somebody slide into derangement. Then he starts posting things about heading out to start a revolution, and sharpening his axe, and... well, yeah maybe he's just posting things.That's the problem, though. When someone becomes erratic like that, it's hard to tell how far off the deep end they may have gone.

Most likely a friend or family member alerted authorities, not to protect any generals or presidents but rather to protect this guy from harming himself, because they believed that he had become delusional and fundamentally disconnected from reality. That shit really happens, and it's really painful to see, and if you know anyone like that do try and get help for them because they will need it.

I've had a friend involuntarily committed several times. Going off meds is a bad thing. The things I've been told while visiting... it really is painful, I don't have another word for it. Here's someone you care about and they're just crazy. The radio is playing songs specifically for them, the meanings speak about them and their situation. Things in their personal life are happening (except they actually aren't). Convinced of things that haven't happened, that aren't true, but they have a memory of it and know it's true and you know it's not and they can't believe you, and hell, you're afraid to speak out and correct them because while they're receiving care (against their will, yes) they're convinced that the doctors are actually experimenting on them and it's all part of a conspiracy to keep them quiet, to keep them down, to dull their mind -- and if you try and disagree with them, you're suddenly all a part of that mess and if you just stay quiet and let the doctors help them at least you can still visit and make them smile so they have a bright part of their day while they're recovering.

This was NOT because of his political views, this was and is only about Raud's mental illness (or lack thereof, although I very seriously doubt that he is not mentally ill).

Damn, you make some fine and excellent points. A friend of mine pointed out that the "sharpen my axe" and "i'm here to sever heads" quotes are from the lyrics of a song by the Vancouver Hip Hop Band Swollen Members [wikipedia.org] called "Don't Bring me Down". And I was defending the quoting of lyrics.

But you are absolutely right that people in the midst of a psychotic break or in the midst of paranoid delusions do in fact believe that everything in the world references them directly: that the songs on the radio are not just about them but are directly speaking to them.

So I retract my previous statements. We are of course free to express ourselves, but some outrageous statements may require assessment? Or should the boundary really be at outrageous action? Outrageous statements ought to be allowed and actions that cross the line ought not. But the trick is where does the outrageous statement cross the line?

Allowing detention for statements alone is getting very fascist. Even allowing psychiatric detention or forced psych evaluation for statements alone is not fair: the soviets used to lock up dissenters in psychiatric wards, didn't they?

I'm far beyond the magic of a wand inside a wizard's fistSharper than the hand of Edward Scissor's, I'm a wiz at thisHotter than the desert but I'm colder than a blizzard kidHarder than a prison bid, with God I'm never hesitantMy business it isn't a

The complaint names two Chesterfield County police officers, two Chesterfield County social workers, one Chesterfield County psychotherapist and up to 10 unnamed people who may be FBI or Secret Service agents.

... they call in social workers and a psychotherapist..... and other people who "could be" FBI or Secret Service... or simply workers at whatever institution he was held at for a week.

I have to agree, Raub is not a good poster child for the Government's abuse of our rights (neither is C. J Grissom [theglobaldispatch.com] for that matter) his postings crossed the line between free speach and threats verbalised.

If these Raub quotes are accurate (below), what would you do? People act surprised (and upset that "nobody did anything!") when shooters turn up in movie theaters or schools, or when bombers crash your marathon.

I certainly don't act surprised. Imbeciles who get angry that nobody did anything are part of the reason we have the TSA and other such rights-infringing nonsense. Myself? I'd rather nothing be done than violate someone's rights.

This is where the "Do something" crowd falls down a pit of bias. We've seen similar rhetoric from politicians and tv 'personalities'. As rhetoric it's protected speech, as straight statements of non metaphorical intent, it's an imminent threat. The metaphoric rhetoric almost certainly far out masses the straight statements of non metaphorical intent, so just seeing the above is not a proper signal of a threat, though if sufficient resources exist, it may warrant some spot checks to see if there are other signals, on it's own, it shouldn't be sufficient to detain anyone. If, on it's own, that is sufficient to detain someone, then large swaths of society are arbitrarily detainable; not necessarily for those specific views, but for rhetoric of that style. At that point, certain Jefferson quotes may in fact, need to come into play. I hope that point is not imminent, that the trial turns up proper non rhetorical, non protected, signals that fully justify the detention and aren't nigh universally and arbitrarily applicable to most citizens.

At that point, certain Jefferson quotes may in fact, need to come into play. I hope that point is not imminent, that the trial turns up proper non rhetorical, non protected, signals that fully justify the detention and aren't nigh universally and arbitrarily applicable to most citizens.

That point is indeed imminent, and Jefferson's quote will soon be put to the test. I for one want to see what the country looks like afterwards. And if we still speak English then.

If that is the extent of quotes (I skimmed the linked article, it seems to support Raub's point), there was no grounds to pick this guy up. I'm assuming those were the worst lines he typed on Facebook. Nothing like "I'm going to kill soon". He thinks a civil war is coming, and has reasons about what is causing it.

I've posted on this message board that I think a "civil war" is coming to America. Just this week, in fact. I think it will happen within the decade, and maybe within 5 years. My statements about

Thank you, so many of the people who criticize his detainment haven't seen the violent and batshit-crazy stuff he was posting to his Facebook wall (the part about Bush's secret pedo-castle was my favorite part). Kind of puts it into context.

And if he snapped and made good on those threats the same people would probably be saying "ZOMG how did nobody see this coming, why didn't someone at least question this nutjob!? THANKS OBAMA >:-( "

I have written MUCH MUCH worse than this. Speaking of the end of all life as we know it. I am a writer and game designer. You fuckers eat this shit up. I'd have a hard time figuring out if the guy was part of my viral ad campaign or not. That's why due process matters. To find out what is truth and what is fiction.

Just so you know: Congress has upheld that the police have no obligation to protect you. Your protection is your own business. No amount of government spying can save you.

You misunderstand their intent. Part 1: From their limited vantage point, allowing people to speak freely about fringe political viewpoints allows for them to become bolder, to assemble in various places, and plan to change the status quo to whatever their particular fringe viewpoint specifies. Part 2: By acting on this objective, with this predicted reaction, spinners and their like can claim that more interference / ruling is needed, thus allowing the government to justify its future and current actions t

In a democracy, being critical of the government is a DUTY. It doesn't make you an enemy of the government. It means you care enough about the government to offer feedback that people can hope will result in positive change.

Granted, there are limits. For example, advocating violence as a means to accomplish change in a government that is already democratic isn't the right way to do it. You state your views publicly, talk to your representatives, vote, try to influence other people to vote sensibly, get

"You may remember the story of Brandon Raub, a former Marine who was arrested for making threats on Facebook. After being questioned by the police, he was put on an involuntary psychiatric hold at local hospital John Randolph Psychiatric in Hopewell VA, then moved to Veterans Hospital in Salem, Virginia. Now with the help of the Rutherford Institute, he is suing Chesterfield County police, social workers, a psychotherapist, and other unnamed individuals . According to his complaint [PDF], his detention was part of a federal government program code-named 'Operation Vigilant Eagle,' which monitors military veterans with certain political views."

If you read the linked article, it sounds like he was detained for making threats towards people in the federal government. Given his training, these threats have to be taken seriously.

That is besides the point. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't have his training and were quite successful at causing great harm. Are you advocating that the government should be monitoring everybody's FB posts, email, postal mail, etc. looking for potential crack pots?

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process. The man in question was not a marine, but an ex-marine. Does that mean all ex-military have forfeited those rights? What about all government employees? Where do you draw the line?

Post 9/11 people have willingly given up basic rights that the country was founded on that people fought and died to protect, all out of fear and others have capitalized on it. The Soviet Union had the KGB to "protect" it's citizens. Nazi Germany had the Gestapo to "protect" their citizens. And the US has homeland security. Of course, what are they protecting their citizens against? That's simple, anybody who thinks differently than the government leaders want the populace to think.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some right wing conspiracy theorist. I'm pretty much as liberal as they come. But, it is a common tactic of totalitarian governments to use fear to get people to give up their rights. Hell, even in Florida, they just started their own brownshirt program where citizens are encouraged to report suspected terrorist activity to a special law inforcement group (as if somehow, they couldn't do that before).

On this Memorial Day weekend, as we honor the dead, I'll be thinking of my family members who have fought for our freedom in every war in the US has been involved with including the Revolutionary War. I will thank them for their sacrifice and feel sorrow for what naught it has become.

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.

Raub makes crazy postsThe cops come for him.A psychotherapist interviews Raub in county jail and decides he's bonkersThe psychotherapist (employed by the county) petitions Judge #1 for a temporary psychiatric holdThe judge grants petition #1Raub goes to a local hospital for 4 daysTwo social workers (employed by the county) evaluate Raub and petition for a civil commitmentJudge #2 grants petition #2 and Raub is shipped off to another hospital.

In the US, people do have the right to privacy and the right to due process.

Raub makes crazy postsThe cops come for him.A psychotherapist interviews Raub in county jail and decides he's bonkersThe psychotherapist (employed by the county) petitions Judge #1 for a temporary psychiatric holdThe judge grants petition #1Raub goes to a local hospital for 4 daysTwo social workers (employed by the county) evaluate Raub and petition for a civil commitmentJudge #2 grants petition #2 and Raub is shipped off to another hospital.

7 days after the initial arrest, Raub's lawyer gets a hearing in front of a third JudgeJudge #3 declares that petition #2 is "devoid of factual allegations" and sets Raub free.Does that sound like due process or the workings of an authoritarian state?

Due process doesn't prevent injustice, it's just supposed to correct it after the fact.If you want to prevent injustice, you'll have to create more regulations & oversight for the police.

You left out the part that the only reason the cops came for him is because of a government program that is targeting ex-military monitoring everything they are posting on-line "just in case." Regardless of whether or not he is bonkers or should have been picked up, the ends do not justify the means. He is a US citizen and is afforded the same protections under the constitution as anybody else. If the government were doing this based on ethnic background or sexual preference, there would be hell to pay.

It's an operation designed to find lone wolf type terrorists, not one designed specifically to target ex-military.

What you have here is an individual who made loud enough rants against the government they got the notice they so desperately wanted, in such a way as they were deemed to be a possible threat to others, who after normal a normal psychiatric hold was deemed not t

If you read the article it does indeed sound like that, but you must also keep in mind the article has already re-contextualized his speech acts as threatening. For example the article says:

On August 13, he wrote, "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads."

But previous Slashdotter comments pointed out this is part of a lyrics to a song:

Sharpen up my axe and I am back, I'm here to sever heads /
Compulsive obsessive, I'm also aggressive /
My mouth is the message, my life is a lesson, my pulse is a blessing

Apart from this, he could have been writing fiction, writing in character, writing metaphorically, etc. That said, perhaps talking to him more would have been reasonable, but breaking down his door and arresting him for speech which has no specific, credible threats is not. He just sounds like half the people on Doomsday Preppers [wikipedia.org].

Except I'm fairly certain this guy is actually legitimately mentally ill, and some of his statements were quite worrisome -- my personal suspicion is that someone he knew spoke up to get him picked up so he could get helped. And he did talk about chopping off heads. I don't think they were actual threats, but they were the sort of thing that had I known the guy I'd be worried for HIS safety.

Except I'm fairly certain this guy is actually legitimately mentally ill, and some of his statements were quite worrisome -- my personal suspicion is that someone he knew spoke up to get him picked up so he could get helped.

This is the US, "legitimately mentally ill" people don't get detained against their will for more than 24 hours anymore (even if a loved one gets involved). Rightly, or wrongly, Reagan made sure of that. The big difference here is that he threatened Generals, which is actually not illegal either (threatening the President is a crime, threatening Generals is not).

His training doesn't matter either. If a mentally ill person and a former trained killer threatens his ex-wife or his classmates, at best, the pers

If you don't think they were actual threats, why would you agree with detaining him? The thing is, if you classify these statements as mentally ill and potentially dangerous (and look around: the severing heads comment was actually a song quotation) then you also have to classify a good 15-25% of Tea Partiers as mentally ill and similarly dangerous. As I've posted elsewhere under this story, Ted Nugent is a fabulous example of this. Threatens suicide and presendential assassination in the same breath and n

This would be the same type of ultra-far right nutjob (Seriously, "The Illuminati caused 9/11?" Get bent.) that called for the mass incarceration / murder of anyone of middle eastern decent or membership of the second most popular religion in the world, right?

References aren't proof, they're just citations of other peoples work. If you read and cite 20 crackpot theory books for your article, it's still a crackpot theory.

I used the Trilateral Commission because today, it is a proven fact. There is no question, and notable ex-members do not deny having been members, or that their role was to decide policy in a way that deeply affected the economic and political reality of The United States. But when I was a teenager, someone handed me a flyer on it and I threw it away having decided that it was clearly a bunch of conspiracist bullshit. That doesn't mean other conspiracy theories are true, but it did change my mind about the

This would be the same type of ultra-far right nutjob (Seriously, "The Illuminati caused 9/11?" Get bent.)

Remember when the notion that something called the "trilateral commission" made up of a bunch of wealthy and famous people were making many of the decisions that guided our lives for us was just a bullshit conspiracy? Now you can look it up on Wikipedia, and see a bibliography full of references. Out of curiosity, how do you explain the immediate removal of the debris from the site before any review could occur?

No, I don't remember that notion, because I don't spare brain cycles on loony crackpot bullshit [straightdope.com] that was debunked literally decades ago.

Nor do I have an explanation for the "immediate removal of the debris from the site" because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. [nydailynews.com] Why would I bother researching explanations for situations that exist only in the paranoid delusions of a bunch of ignorant America-hating clowns?

On the one hand, such an operation can be justified in that persons with military training and radical political views make for a volatile and dangerous group: heightened aggression coupled with access to weapons and knowledge of weapon use, explosives, and demolition can lead to nasty results.

On the other hand, there are very few excuses the denying due process, and proactive observation is certainly not one of them.

Sooo... look, I'm fairly certain this guy's mentally ill. I don't know what you would call someone who fully believes in Illuminati conspiracy theory and makes statements intimating that they're going to walk out the door to start the revolution and then follows it up with, yes song quotes but song quotes about lopping off heads and sharpening axes? And what do you think is more likely -- someone who he's friends with on Facebook reading his posts and getting help for him, or some super-secretive government conspiracy targeting people with 'certain views' (which to Raud mean THE TRUTH! and to sane people would mean.. nothing, because Raub's views are the shit you can listen to on NPR after midnight).

It's a mental health issue, man. I for one think it's a good thing if the mental health of our vets is taken care of.

It's a mental health issue, man. I for one think it's a good thing if the mental health of our vets is taken care of.

I for one would think it was a good thing if the mental health of our vets were taken care of, but the fact is that mentally disturbed vets are a fast-growing and major segment of our nation's homeless. We don't give one tenth of one fuck about our veterans unless they are inconvenient, like this guy. This is not repeat not a sign that we take care of our veterans, unless you mean "take care of" euphemistically.

I'm not saying things are great and wonderful, but this is what should be done for those guys. Mental health care in this country is pretty atrocious as it is, one step in the right direction shouldn't be thrown out just because there's a dozen more steps to take

There's a fantastic article in last month's Esquire magazine. They interviewed THE GUY who shot Bin Laden. They preserved the shooter's anonymity, but it is the true, first hand account of the SEAL who pulled the trigger. Fantastic read.

He's retired now after 16 years in the SEALs and gets basically nothing. No pension, no help with job placement in the civilian world, he can't put what he did on a resume, and the medical treatment for chronic injuries for vets is a joke.

What the previous responder said, basically. Psychological attention is different from psychiatric: the latter comes when the former fails or is not present, and takes the form of chill pills, Valium, and other exotic sedatives and anti-psychotics, while the former takes the form of a couch and an attentive ear (sometimes with a persuasive voice added).

I don't know what you would call someone who fully believes in Illuminati conspiracy theory and makes statements intimating that they're going to walk out the door to start the revolution and then follows it up with, yes song quotes but song quotes about lopping off heads and sharpening axes?

Just saying: If I fully believed in the Illuminati conspiracy theory, then I would never, ever post about it on Facebook. I'd be very, very quiet, and if I was an ex-marine, I would prepare for action and then act. But why on earth would I post on Facebook, where the whole world including Illuminati can read it and make sure they get rid of me?

Spoken like someone who's never encountered a seriously mentally ill person.It's not a jail term, it's holding someone against their will, yes -- with the goal to provide them the help they require to function in society without their illness causing undue negative effect to themselves. Or do you think it's better that we just let somebody who believes the CIA is sending mind-control beams into their teeth out on the street? Is THAT the better thing to do? Allow them to wallow in their illness?

You're aware that the homeless are often mentally ill? That the closing of state facilities pushed those people onto the street where they are unable to care for themselves? Is that better for them? Maybe it's better for you, maybe you prefer to just pretend you don't see them on the street, maybe you prefer not knowing that they're homeless not because they're lazy but because they're *crazy*. Personally I'd rather those people receive help, for their own well-being.

But yeah, hey, throw 'em out, who gives a shit right? What's one more missing person case, one more homeless person talking to voices? That's gotta be the right solution!

He committed no violence. And as a veteran, I'm sure he had a belly full of violence in his life and is more than likely sick of it. I'm inclined to believe that a veteran - especially one that has saw combat - would be much less inclined towards violence than the general population.

While overall the armed forces are less likely than civilians to offend, they are three times more likely to be convicted of violent offences; 20% of younger males (under 30) have been convicted of violence compared with 6.7% of civilians. Those who served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan were 53% more likely to offend violently than those not on the frontline. Those with multiple experiences of combat had a 70%-80% greater risk of being convicted for acts of violence.

That doesn't mean that I agree with 'profiling' veterans, just that your assumption may be off.

I never said all veterans are violent, nor that he committed violence. And it's also true that there are those who get sick of violence during their tour. But it's also true that military training is geared towards desensitizing towards violence and heightening aggression, in preparation for combat situations, as well as imparting knowledge of guerrilla warfare, insurgency, basic demolitions, etc. for operation in enemy territory. Should a person prepared in such a way exhibit radical views, the stage is se

Misleading headline is misleading, he was check into the mental health ward for an evaluation after acting like a nut. The fact that he has views that are generally only held by nutcases didn't help his case.

Guy is one of those conspiracy theory whack jobs that thinks societies refusal to consider his conspiracy theories makes him a political target. Sometimes when society thinks your ideas are crazy you just might be crazy.

I my town there is a guy who pushes a cart full of cans down the street who's rantings are pretty hostile. I can't imagine how long the list of people he has threatened would be but it might very well include everybody. I wouldn't hire him to babysit but his total kill count seems to hover around 0.

So if they want to arrest people for having mad ramblings they could start with anyone possessing almost any religious text.

The guy's postings paint him as legitimately mentally ill. He was picked up not because he was a threat to others but because he was a threat to himself.Now, maybe that was all unjustified worry -- but if I knew someone who actually wholly believed in Illuminati conspiracy bullshit, and if they started talking about starting the revolution, sharpening their axe and coming for heads? I'd be fucking worried they were going to do something, yes!

This isn't a your-rights-online issue, this is a mental health issue. I for one think it's a good idea if the government makes an effort to keep tabs on the mental health of veterans.

I'm posting the same basic reply over and over for this story, but only because people are using the same defense over and over and being moderated up for it.

Take a look at Ted Nugent. Pubically claimed he would be "either dead or in prison" if Obama was reelected. That is threat both of suicide and a threat of presidential assassination. Reaction: he was allowed to attend a state of the union address.

The shame of it is, that Raub may get money from his suit. Then the whole case will quietly disappear, the media won't give it time, why because they have no qualms against a government that lets them buy laws and pursue false copyright claims. It is decidedly not in the medias interest to be overly critical of the government to the point that the populace becomes concerned.

So, the erosion of rights and the police nanny state will continue as it has been.

Please all-powerful government, do everything you can. Ass-rape me, incarcerate my neighbors, whatever it takes. Just protect me from the Indian, the commie, immigrant Latino, drug dealer, the brown guy that prays five times a day, the guy with shampoo at the airport, the four year old girl scared of the scanners, the crazy veteran, sharks, and lightning strikes.
By all means do not protect me from the transfer of wealth and jobs and power to fewer and fewer. I do not care of this country becomes a shell of rich elite surrounding a poor, ignorant populace. As long as I have TMZ and the lottery and reality TV, I will be a-ok.

This goes all the way up to the top - Back in 09, the administration put out a report saying that veterans are terrorists...This was highly offensive and troubling to many, but it blew over - maybe this will bring this scandal back to the surface...

the administration put out a report saying that veterans are terrorists...

10 seconds of reading shows your statement is complete kooky bullshit. The report says right wing extremists are a threat, like Timothy McVeigh. Do you really expect people to take your extraordinary claims at face value?

So here is my problem. When kids join the military, they think that it is all free. That they get the free money, free training, free room and board, a pension, healthcare, all at taxpayer expense, for free. You don't. When in the military you boss is the POTUS, and you don't get to argue. You agreed with that when you accepted the above minimum wage paycheck for training. Also, according to what I read, you accept to be inactive duty for a number of years. I would also add that if you go around saying you are a decorated veteran, there is some responsibility to not act like a fool and disgrace that work.

This is true to some extent for any taxpayer funded job. If you are a teacher you can be let go for your facebook page. If you are a politician you can be forced to resign for your tweets. Taxpayer funded jobs are not like private jobs. They come with strings.

In this light let look at this case. This guy is a retired Marine, which means that he volunteered to serve his country, follow the chain of command, and accepted a pay check to do so. He is 26-27 so he is probably still on active duty. He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

My understanding he is being treated with kid gloves. He was held in a mental facility, instead of being charged with treason. If he is suffering from PSTD this is a good thing. Many vets do not get the help they need, and listening for these cries for help is something that the government should be doing.

In the end Facebook, despite what we want to believe, is a public venue and we should not be plotting revolutions using it. Everyone knows Twitter is where all the cool revolutionaries go. The government has some responsibility to monitor public communications to keep the country safe. This is one of the few enumerated roles of government, and is why this kid did not have to go out and find a real job. In this case, he many only be crazy as opposed to someone who would go into Time Square a shoot a dozen people. In either case, be it prevention or help, I don't see how this is a bad thing. If nothing else it is an example to kids that the military is not just playing soldier, it has some lifelong responsibilities.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Except he didn't actually levy war on anyone, nor collaborate in any way with our enemies. All he did was trash talk. So there is no way this would be considered treason in the US. The US Constitution defines treason very narrowly, and for a damn good reason, because it was and is used to stifle freedom of speech in other countries.

The problem I have here is the assumed guilt, without a trial. I can have no part in this, as it lacks any sense of truth, only the vile evil of a group acting in unison to its own self-righteous ends.

He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or

'Revolution' is coming. 'I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting.' On July 24, he said he was at a 'great crossroads. As if a storm of destiny is about to pick me up and take me to fight a great battle.' On August 9 he talked about severing heads and told the generals he was coming for them. On August 13, he wrote, 'Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads.' On August 14, Raub wrote, 'The Revolution will come for me. Men will be at my door soon to pick me up to lead it.'"

In typical viral social media fashion this violence-threatening nutjob's has been turned into a hero.
Too bad kids today seem unable to read anything past the first 140 characters of what they read online.
So go ahead an vote me down as flamebait.

He is free to say anything he wants. He is not being punished for his speech but for threats which are conveyed by his speech.

"Give me all your money; I have a concealed weapon" is all one needs to do rob a bank. My example isn't even literally clear cut because there is no literal threat of violence - but most people would call that a crime.

Bradley Manning is being detained for his political views; because holding officials accountable by letting the voters know what they've been doing is too democratic fo

It is not political and it is not because he's gay (yes, there are those who've cast it like this)
Bradley Manning is being held because he committed a Federal crime by disclosing classified information.
He had the highest level security clearance and knowingly disclosed classified information. At a moral level he violated an oath and potentially put American lives at risk. He was a soldier. His job was to follow orders and not to decide what should and should not be classified. If he was not prepared t

But then it appears that Operation Vigilant Eagle is an FBI operation and isn't targeting military or ex-military individuals. So, threats are threats and nuts is nuts. Round 'em all up and let the justice system sort it out.